self build

In message <[email hidden]>, Tony W <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

"pineapple" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is it generally cheaper to buy a complete bike than its constituent parts separately?

Yes.

Not only that, even if you want some bit a bit different, it can still be cheaper to buy the
complete bike, and then change the bits you want.
--
Chris French, Leeds

"pineapple" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is it generally cheaper to buy a complete bike than its constituent parts separately?

Yes.

Tony W said:

"pineapple" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is it generally cheaper to buy a complete bike than its constituent parts separately?

Yes.

Well, maybe not always.

I think buying a good (but cheap) second hand frame and then building with new components is a good
way to get excellent value. Good frames can be found for not a lot of money and a there are plenty
of excellent deals around for full groupsets and handbuilt wheels. Raid the spares box for a few
finishing bits and you've got a fine bike for a pretty keen price. And the satisfaction of building
it yourself.
--

"Bob"

Email address is spamtrapped. To reply directly remove the beverage.

Simon Brooke said:

chris French said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Simon Brooke
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> writes:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
> >
> > I'm 32" inside leg, I ride a 25.5" (65cm) just now but on the whole prefer a 26.5" (67cm).
> > My guess is that 65cm would probably be right for you.
>
> Shirley something wrong. I have a 35" inside leg and only ride a
> 63cm. How the hell do you reach the ground on your bike?

I don't, I cycle it. When I do stop, I can get a tip-toe down, which is all you need for
balance. I can't get both tip-toes down at once, but if I could I'd be riding with my knees bent
to odd angles.

My tourer and my much 'Utility bike' (modded old MTB) both have highish bottom brackets and I
can't get my feet down when on the saddle - I normally slip off the seat and put one down.

However, I am bemused (as others are ) by your statement about frame size. I two have an inside
leg of about 32 inches - my tourer is something like 21 inches frame size - any bigger and I
wouldn't be able to stand over it really. I certainly couldn't stand over a 26 inch frame (26+
say 10 inches BB height = 36 = ouch !)

Yes, but the seat tube isn't vertical. In any case, who cares if you can stand over it? You don't
stand over it, you ride it. In fact I can just stand over it (no clearance), but once again, so
what? It's the smallest road bike I've had in thirty years and god knows how many thousand miles.
For at least half of that period my road bikes were not just my main but my only form of
tranport, and for only four of those years I lived in a town; the rest I've lived in quite small
villages. So my bikes have seen a lot of miles. I haven't suffered any cycling injury of _any_
kind in that time.

You must realise that while you may prefer this set-up it is extremely unusual and therefore it
seems strange you would advise the OP as if it was the norm.

Regards! Stephen

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

chris French said:

If we take you preferred stated size of 67cm add say 17.5 for the crank length, say another 10
cm for seat post and saddle gives a total saddle top to pedal distance of about 94 cm
considerably more than the 81 or so which is a 32 inch ISL.

96.5cm, actually. You don't pedal with your heel, you pedal with the ball of your foot. Mind you,
my feet are quite small; someone with proportionally sized feet I would expect to want
something taller.

hmmn Chris (hope I got the attribution right) was referring to your ISL (as he stated) and (I would
think) had in mind the common saddle height rule of thumb that if you place your heel flat on the
pedal whilst seated on the saddle then your leg should be fully extended at the bottom of the pedal
stroke (ie top of saddle to top of pedal distance should max out at your ISL length). It is
obviously possible to ride a bike that is significantly larger or smaller than the accepted optimum
size for efficiency and comfort. Once you take the opposing elements of those two goals and the
disagreement over the art of frame sizing there is quite a wide envelope for what is the "correct"
size for a frame but I think correspondents are simply remarking that your own preference is outside
what many others would consider to be the limits of that envelope

best wishes james

james said:

hmmn Chris (hope I got the attribution right) was referring to your ISL (as he stated) and (I
would think) had in mind the common saddle height rule of thumb that if you place your heel flat
on the pedal whilst seated on the saddle then your leg should be fully extended at the bottom of
the pedal stroke (ie top of saddle to top of pedal distance should max out at your ISL length). It
is obviously possible to ride a bike that is significantly larger or smaller than the accepted
optimum size for efficiency and comfort. Once you take the opposing elements of those two goals
and the disagreement over the art of frame sizing there is quite a wide envelope for what is the
"correct" size for a frame but I think correspondents are simply remarking that your own
preference is outside what many others would consider to be the limits of that envelope

There are more factors than the foot on the pedal measurement. Obviously you need to be able at
least to reach the pedal in the bottom position with the saddle at its lowest position which is what
that test tells you. You also need to be able to stand astride the top tube when stopped. The other
factor is that the top tube length tends to be in proportion to the frame size and too large a frame
will leave you stretched out with too long a top tube. Most would consider a 25" frame to be far too
big for a 32" inside leg. However its probably not impossible to ride if you want to insist.

Tony

Steve McGinty said:

Simon Brooke said:

Yes, but the seat tube isn't vertical. In any case, who cares if you can stand over it? You don't
stand over it, you ride it. In fact I can just stand over it (no clearance), but once again, so
what? It's the smallest road bike I've had in thirty years and god knows how many thousand miles.
For at least half of that period my road bikes were not just my main but my only form of
tranport, and for only four of those years I lived in a town; the rest I've lived in quite small
villages. So my bikes have seen a lot of miles. I haven't suffered any cycling injury of _any_
kind in that time.

You must realise that while you may prefer this set-up it is extremely unusual and therefore it
seems strange you would advise the OP as if it was the norm.

OK, so I'm out of fashion. But the fashion is mainly related to manufacturers wanting to optimise
their stockholding by rationalising the number of sizes. There are few technical reasons for
preferring smaller frames. What matters is fit, and other things being equal you're less likely to
break steerers, stems and seat-tubes on a larger frame, so the risk of injury-causing failure is (I
believe) very sightly reduced. Also, for a given frame material, a larger frame will be slightly -
very slightly - more compliant.

So my advice to people is still to get as large a frame as they are comfortable on, and it will
continue to be so until someone gives me a convincing argument why this is unwise. And as far as I'm
concerned, the convenience of the manufacturer does not count.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

;; this is not a .sig

Simon Brooke said:

So my advice to people is still to get as large a frame as they are comfortable on, and it will
continue to be so until someone gives me a convincing argument why this is unwise. And as far as
I'm concerned, the convenience of the manufacturer does not count.

In which case presumably price doesn't either?

cheers, clive